alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Smutzer v. Stimson.

1. Contracts—Illegal Consideration.

A promise based upon an illegal consideration is void.

2. Same.

A contract the consideration of which, was an agreement not to defend a divorce suit pending between the parties, is illegal and void.

3. Same.

Agreements to facilitate divorce are not to be tolerated.

*Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. Lucius W. Hoyt, for appellant.

Mr. G. Q. Richmond, for appellee.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Emma M. Stimson brought this suit against Frederick O. Smutzer, alleging that upon the institution, on the 8th day of February, 1894, of a proceeding against her by Frederick C. Smutzer for a divorce, she made an agreement with him that she would not appear to the action, or answer his complaint, and that she would waive and abandon any right she might have to alimony; in consideration of which agreement on her part, he made and entered into a written contract with her, which provided for the waiver of alimony by her, and bound him, in lieu of alimony to pay to her $50.00 per month during the period of her natural life. A compliance with *327the agreement on her part, and a failure in the stipulated monthly payments on his part, were alleged, and judgment demanded. .The answer admitted the agreement as alleged in the complaint, and upon motion of the plaintiff judgment was awarded her on the pleadings.

The only question for our determination is whether upon the allegations of her complaint the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment which she recovered. The plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife; the defendant commenced a suit for a divorce from the plaintiff, and it distinctly appears that the consideration of the written contract, and the promise which it contains, was an agreement of the plaintiff that she would make no defense to the action. This consideration was illegal, and the promise based on it void. It is true that under our law marriage is a civil contract; but it differs from all other contracts, in that when it is once entered into, it cannot be annulled at the pleasure of the parties. When the marriage relation has been assumed, it is indissoluble except by the solemn judgment of a court, for some cause which, after severe and jealous scrutiny, the court shall find sufficient under the law to warrant the judgment. It is not alone the interests of the immediate parties to which the law looks. It also takes into account the welfare of the social organization. There is an intimate connection between the sanctity of the marriage relation and the well-being of society ; and, on grounds of public policy, agreements to facilitate divorce are not tolerated. *Adams v.*Adams, 25 Minn. 72; *Phillips v. Thorp,*10 Ore. 494; *Muckenburg v. Holler,*29 Ind. 139; *Loveren v. Loveren,*106 Cal. 509; *Viser v. Bertrand,*14 Ark. 276; *Stoutenburg v. Lybrand,*13 Ohio St. 228.

The facts which invalidate this agreement appear on the face of the complaint. Upon the pleadings the judgment should have been for the defendant, and this judgment is therefore reversed.

*Heversed.*
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1086 Mixed-gas diving.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.426 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/section-1910.426).

[[61 FR 31432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31432), June 20, 1996]
§ 70.4 Prohibited acts. ( a ) The prohibited acts enumerated in part 27 of this chapter are equally applicable to national fish hatchery areas.
( b ) Fishing, taking, seining, or attempting to fish, take, seine, any fish, amphibian, or other aquatic animal on any national fish hatchery area is prohibited except as may be authorized under the provisions of part 71 of this chapter.
( c ) Hunting, killing, capturing, taking, or attempting to hunt, kill, capture, or take any animal on any national fish hatchery area is prohibited except as may be authorized in the provisions of part 71 of this chapter.
( d ) Disturbing spawning fish or fish preparing to spawn in ponds, raceways, streams, lakes, traps, and below traps, ladders, fish screens, fishways and racks is prohibited.
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: DEC 1 8 

To: AI Spence, Directives Program Manager, ASP-11 0 d. 

From: JohnS. Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Se ·c , 
 - •

Prepared by: Richard Mathews, Directive Management Offic , AFS-140 f5~ 

Subject: Cancellation of Advisory Circulars: AC 135-13Q, AC 140-2K.K, AC 140-7T, 


and 147-2PP 

Flight Standards Service is requesting the cancellation of the following Advisory Circulars: 

A.C No. 135-13Q, FAA Certified Air Carriers Website (Directory), provided the public the 

website that contains Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Certificated Air Carriers as 

requir~d under the provisions ofTitle 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) oc.rt · . 

I.> .. 

AC No. 140-2KK, FAA Certificated Pilot Schools Website (Directory), provided the public the 

website that contains Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Certificated Pilot Schools. 

AC No. 140-7T, FAA Certificated Repair Stations Website (Directory), provided the public the 

website that contains Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Certificated Repair Stations, which 

arc cc11ificated under the authority ofTitle 14 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) part 145. 

AC No. 147-2PP, FAA. Certificated Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools Website 

(Directory), provided the public the website that contains Federal Aviation Administration 

(FA.A.) Certificated Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools, which arc certificated under the 

provisions ofTitle 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) part 147. 

These AC's are no longer beneficial to the aviation public since they can get this information 

from the website FAA.GOV. 

AC 

N umber Date Document Title OPR Reason for Cancellation 

135-13Q 02/11/08 FAA Certified Air Carriers 

Website (Directory) 

AFS-640 See above explanation 
2 

AC 

Number Date Document Title OPR Reason for Cancellation 

140-2KK 02/13/2008 FAA Certificated Pilot 

Schools Website (Directory) 

AFS-640 See above 

explanation 

140-7T 02/12/2008 FAA Certificated Repair 

Stations Website (Directory) 

AFS-640 See above 

explanation 

147-2PP 02/15/2008 FAA Certificated Pilot 

Schools Website (Directory) 

AFS-640 See above explanation 

Should you have any concerns or questions, please contact Mr. Richard Mathews, AFS-140, at 

(202) 267-4166. 

AFS-140 

AFS-1 

WP:I AFS/ AFS110/CORRES/BELL/Richard MEMO
# EUR-Lex - 12004V306 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V306

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE V — THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION - CHAPTER II — COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Section 1 — Common provisions - Article III-306 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0137 - 0138 *

Article III-306

The diplomatic and consular missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries and international conferences, and their representations to international organisations, shall cooperate in ensuring that the European decisions defining Union positions and actions adopted pursuant to this Chapter are complied with and implemented. They shall step up cooperation by exchanging information and carrying out joint assessments.

They shall contribute to the implementation of the right of European citizens to protection in the territory of third countries as referred to in Article I-10(2)(c) and the measures adopted pursuant to Article III-127.

--------------------------------------------------
INT'L TR

ANSPO

RTER DESIGNATED FA

CILITY

EPA Form 8700-22 (Rev. 3-05) Previous editions are obsolete.

17. Transporter Acknowledgment of Receipt of Materials

Transporter 1 Printed/Typed Name Signature Month Day Year

Transporter 2 Printed/Typed Name Signature Month Day Year

18. Discrepancy

18a. Discrepancy Indication Space ■ Quantity ■ Type

Manifest Reference Number:

■ Residue ■ Partial Rejection ■ Full Rejection

18b. Alternate Facility (or Generator)

Facility's Phone:

U.S. EPA ID Number

18c. Signature of Alternate Facility (or Generator) Month Day Year

19. . Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes (i.e., codes for hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recycling systems)

2. 3. 4.

20. Designated Facility Owner or Operator: Certification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by the manifest except as noted in Item 18a

Printed/Typed Name Signature Month Day Year

■ Import to U.S. ■ Export from U.S. Port of entry/exit: _________________________________________________________

Transporter signature (for exports only): 	 	 	 	 	 Date leaving U.S.: 	

16. International Shipments

Please print or type. (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitch) typewriter.) 	 	 	 	 	 Form Approved. OMB No. 2050-0039

UNIFORM HAZARDOUS

WASTE MANIFEST

1. Generator ID Number 2. Page 1 of 3. Emergency Response Phone 4. Manifest Tracking Number

5. Generator's Name and Mailing Address Generator's Site Address (if different than mailing address)

Generator's Phone:

6. Transporter 1 Company Name U.S. EPA ID Number

9a.

HM

9b. U.S. DOT Description (including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class, ID Number,

and Packing Group (if any))

10. Containers

No. Type

11. Total

Quantity

12. Unit

Wt./Vol. 13. Waste Codes

1.

2.

3.

4.

14. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information

15.	 GENERATOR’S/OFFEROR’S CERTIFICATION: I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully and accurately described above by the proper shipping name, and are classified, packaged,

	 marked and labeled/placarded, and are in all respects in proper condition for transport according to applicable international and national governmental regulations. If export shipment and I am the Primary

	 Exporter, I certify that the contents of this consignment conform to the terms of the attached EPAAcknowledgment of Consent.

	 I certify that the waste minimization statement identified in 40 CFR 262.27(a) (if I am a large quantity generator) or (b) (if I am a small quantity generator) is true.

Generator's/Offeror's Printed/Typed Name Signature Month Day Year

8. Designated Facility Name and Site Address U.S. EPA ID Number

Facility's Phone:

GENER

ATO

R

7. Transporter 2 Company Name U.S. EPA ID Number

1.

DESIGNATED FACILITY TO DESTINATION STATE (IF REQUIRED)
# Map            Italy, administrative divisions.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7537

BRIAN DANIELS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (0:09-cv-00755-PMD)

Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: February 5, 2013

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion seeking to alter or amend the district court’s 

order denying Rule 60(b) relief.*

 These orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

 * We reject Daniels’ argument that the district court’s 

issuance of margin orders violates his due process rights.
3

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Daniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 1915.1200 Hazard communication.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1200 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/section-1910.1200).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
# EUR-Lex - 11957E051 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957E051

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, PART TWO - FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, TITLE III - FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL, CHAPTER 1: WORKERS, ARTICLE 51 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 51

THE COUNCIL SHALL , ACTING UNANIMOUSLY ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION , ADOPT SUCH MEASURES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY AS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS ; TO THIS END , IT SHALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO SECURE FOR MIGRANT WORKERS AND THEIR DEPENDANTS :

( A ) AGGREGATION , FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING AND RETAINING THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT AND OF CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT , OF ALL PERIODS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL COUNTRIES ;

( B ) PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO PERSONS RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORIES OF MEMBER STATES .
# EUR-Lex - 12002E024 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E024

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title I: Free movement of goods - Article 24 - Article 10 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 10 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0046 - 0046 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0188 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0011 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Three: Community policies

Title I: Free movement of goods

Article 24

Article 10 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 10 - EEC Treaty

Article 24

Products coming from a third country shall be considered to be in free circulation in a Member State if the import formalities have been complied with and any customs duties or charges having equivalent effect which are payable have been levied in that Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or charges.
§ 86.58 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project for a physical component, technology, or technique that will improve eligible user access? ( a ) In evaluating a proposed project under the criterion at § 85.51(c)(1), we consider whether the project will increase the availability of the BIG-funded facility for eligible users or improve eligible boater access to the facility by: ( 1 ) Using a new technology or technique; or
( 2 ) Applying a new use of an existing technology or technique.
( b ) We will not award points for following access standards set by law.
( c ) We will consider if you choose to complete the project using an optional or advanced technology or technique that will improve access, or if you go beyond the minimum requirements.
( d ) To receive consideration for this criterion, you must describe in the grant application the current standard and how you will exceed the standard.
§ 665.127 Allowable gear and gear restrictions. ( a ) American Samoa coral reef ECS may be taken only with the following allowable gear and methods: ( 1 ) Hand harvest;
( 2 ) Spear;
( 3 ) Slurp gun;
( 4 ) Hand net/dip net;
( 5 ) Hoop net for Kona crab;
( 6 ) Throw net;
( 7 ) Barrier net;
( 8 ) Surround/purse net that is attended at all times;
( 9 ) Hook-and-line (includes handline (powered or not), rod-and-reel, and trolling);
( 10 ) Crab and fish traps with vessel ID number affixed; and
( 11 ) Remote-operating vehicles/submersibles.
( b ) American Samoa coral reef ECS may not be taken by means of poisons, explosives, or intoxicating substances. Possession or use of these materials by any permit holder under this subpart who is established to be fishing for coral reef ECS in the management area is prohibited.
( c ) Existing FEP fisheries shall follow the allowable gear and methods outlined in their respective plans.
( d ) Any person who intends to fish with new gear not included in this section must describe the new gear and its method of deployment in the special permit application. A decision on the permissibility of this gear type will be made by the Regional Administrator after consultation with the Council and the director of the affected state fishery management agency.
[75 FR 2205, Jan. 14, 2010, as amended at 84 FR 2770, Feb. 8, 2019]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Flightline Ground, Inc. 

Complainant 

v. 

Louisiana Department Of Transportation And 

Development, As Successor To The Louisiana 

Division Of Administration And The Board Of 

Commissioners For The Management Of The 

Lakefront Airport; Non-Flood Protection Asset 

Management Authority, As Successor To The Board 

Of Commissioners Of The Orleans Parish Levee 

District And Orleans Parish Levee District, Division 

Of Non-Flood Assets. 

Respondent 

FAA Docket No. 16-11-01 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFRpart 16. Pursuant to part 16, subpart B, the date by 

which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

November 7, 2014. 

An extension of time is necessary and an appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

Eduardo A. Angeles 

Associate Administrator 

for Airports 

Date ~ 7 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on OCT 1 0 , 2014, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time, 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Alan Armstrong, Esq. 

Attorney at Law 

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road 

Building 5, Suite 350 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

Counsel for Respondent 

Brandon Brown, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development 

1201 Capital Access Road 

Office S304/S305 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804 

Gerald G. Metzger, Esq. 

Charles Curtis, Esq. 

Metzger Law Firm 

829 Baronne Street 

New Orleans, LA 70113 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA 

Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

FAA Southwest Region, AS W -600
# EUR-Lex - 12002E308 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E308

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Six: General and Final Provisions - Article 308 - Article 235 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 235 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0153 - 0153 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0301 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0078 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Six: General and Final Provisions

Article 308

Article 235 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 235 - EEC Treaty

Article 308

If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.
# EUR-Lex - 11992M/PRO/SEBC/20 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992M/PRO/SEBC/20

**Treaty on European Union - Protocol on the statute of the european system of central banks and of the European Central Bank - Chapter IV: Monetary functions and operations of the ESCB - Article 20: Other instruments of monetary control **

*
Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0073 *

Article 20

Other instruments of monetary control

The Governing Council may, by a majority of two thirds of the votes cast, decide upon the use of such other operational methods of monetary control as it sees fit, respecting Article 2.

The Council shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 42, define the scope of such methods if they impose obligations on third parties.
#### George A. Makin, an Infant, by Helen E. Makin, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*The Pettebone Cataract Paper Company, Appellant.

(Argued February 28, 1907;

decided March 15, 1907.)

*Makin*v. *Pettebone Cataract Paper Co.,*111 App. Div. 726, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 20, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*Maulsby Kimball*for appellant.

*Robert H. Gittins*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscook, JJ. ■